tcjkbt Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 This where it gets sticky being a genuine pro-(all) life person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fear the Nation Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 Six feet under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#99 Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 Why should I the taxpayer ( and every other) have to pay for this guy to sit in prison? He has no respect for innocent human life, therefore I beleive he doesn't need to experience life any longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindoc Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 I think barbaric is all perspective. I think it more appropriate and humane to enact swift and final punishment when it's beyond a reasonable doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggclfan Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 He won't last long enough for either. He will end his own life or someone will do it for him. I am against the death penalty. My guess his cell mates will eventually take him out OR will have so much FUN with him in prison that he will take his own life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDeuce Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 I think barbaric is all perspective. I think it more appropriate and humane to enact swift and final punishment when it's beyond a reasonable doubt. Agree 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Maniac Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 Death Penalty, I could inject the stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsfan41 Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 Why should I the taxpayer ( and every other) have to pay for this guy to sit in prison? He has no respect for innocent human life, therefore I beleive he doesn't need to experience life any longer. Because it is much much cheaper than putting him to death. I'm all for the death penalty but it costs way way too much due to the mandated automatic appeal process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsrider Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 I think barbaric is all perspective. I think it more appropriate and humane to enact swift and final punishment when it's beyond a reasonable doubt. You could definitely argue that tossing someone in our prison system is more barbaric than a quick death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jericho Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 Guillotine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fear the Nation Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 Because it is much much cheaper than putting him to death. I'm all for the death penalty but it costs way way too much due to the mandated automatic appeal process. Bullets are cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKMustangFan Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 Bullets are cheap. Fortunately, that's not how the system works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKMustangFan Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 As of 2014, since 1973, 144 people (or 1.6%) of all death row inmates have been exonerated. If we, as a country, did what many want and eliminate or greatly curtail the appeals process, that's a whole lot of innocent people we'd have murdered. 1.6% isn't many, but it's way too many when we're talking about killing innocent people. Surely, all can agree on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDeuce Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 As of 2014, since 1973, 144 people (or 1.6%) of all death row inmates have been exonerated. If we, as a country, did what many want and eliminate or greatly curtail the appeals process, that's a whole lot of innocent people we'd have murdered. 1.6% isn't many, but it's way too many when we're talking about killing innocent people. Surely, all can agree on that? I hear what you are saying. But there are instances when we know without a shadow of a doubt they are guilty of a particular crime. For those cases, it's absolutely appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKMustangFan Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 I hear what you are saying. But there are instances when we know without a shadow of a doubt they are guilty of a particular crime. For those cases, it's absolutely appropriate. I get that, but we can't have different criteria for different instances. We can't just say, "yep, we're positive you did it, time to put a bullet through your skull and be done with it." I'll also add that I believe almost everyone believed without a shadow of a doubt that every single person ever put on death row was guilty of the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts